MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065083921 · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7514.456-a

Dissemination of results needs to be tracked as well as the funding is

2005· letter· en· W2065083921 on OpenAlexaff
James McCormack, Peter Loewen, Peter J. Jewesson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth and Medical Research Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prognosis in obesity Older people should not be misinformed about being overweightEditor-With reference to the editorial by Lean on prognosis in obesity, 1 advising apparently overweight older people to lose weight may do more harm than good.Evidence suggests that the risks of being "overweight" decrease with increasing age.On the basis of mortality, the ideal body mass index (BMI) is higher in older than young adults, with an optimum BMI for people older than 65 in the young adult "overweight" range of 27-30 kg/m 2 . 2 In a systematic review, Heiat et al concluded that the relation between BMI and mortality in people older than 65 is a flat bottomed, Ushaped curve, with mortality rising only at BMI > 31 kg/m 2 and perhaps not at any BMI in people older than 75. 2 Weight loss is more common than weight gain in older people, and associated with poor outcomes, even when the weight loss is intentional and the person was "overweight" at baseline. [3]4][5] In the prospective cardiovascular health study of some 4700 community dwelling people older than 65, weight loss of more than 5% over three years was substantially more common than weight gain of more than 5%. 3 Weight loss, but not weight gain, was associated with a significantly increased risk of mortality (relative risk 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.29 to 2.15). 3 The association of increased mortality with weight loss persisted even at the highest third of baseline weight. 3 In a study of older men with BMI ≥ 30 kg/m 2 , intentional weight loss was associated (P < 0.001) with a greater rate of hip bone loss ( -1.7%/year) than in men with no weight loss ( -0.1%/year) or weight gain (0.5%/year). 5 The indiscriminate application of evidence from studies in younger adults to the management of older people is hazardous.We believe that many older people are trying to lose weight inappropriately.There is a need to ensure that most of our elders are given appropriate advice: "Keep physically active, eat sensibly, and maintain weight."

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.303
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.660
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3030.660
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.015
Bibliometrics0.0130.015
Science and technology studies0.0060.009
Scholarly communication0.0490.051
Open science0.0090.024
Research integrity0.0450.034
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2050.259

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.481
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicHealth and Medical Research ImpactsFrench-language works237,207